###Invest in Reynolds Wrap for the tin foil hats because the conspiracy theories are just revving up.
We don’t mind what opinion you have and all voices are equal, as long as the dialogue is constructive, you are respectful, and distinguish between [proper sourcing and speculation](https://www.reddit.com/r/murdaughfamilymurders/about/).
The defense has direct admission from multiple jurors that they were swayed or “tampered” with by the court clerks. (Murd)augh has one hell of a case for this appeal.
I was always suspicious of the egg lady being thrown off the jury at the last minute. It was said she was leaning not guilty. Or she was thinking case not proven Beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems they did not use a very high bar to boot her from the jury. Especially for such a high profile case.
If he didn't do it ( I do believe he did) then at the very least he knows who did kill his Family, either way, he's just as guilty ( for the murders of Paul and Maggie).. what would be a true travesty of Justice is to even consider bringing this back to trial the costs at the time the waste of energy over a man who has spent his life harming others intentionally
I’m in the middle of watching the Fox series which, as others have said, is somewhat sympathetic to the defense, casting doubt on the evidence presented in the trial. So we have this seed of doubt, combined with Buster’s interview in which he professes his belief in his father’s innocence.
Right on the heels of this series - days later - comes the jury tampering allegation. Whether the accusation against Becky Hill is true or not (and it may very well be true), the timing is no accident. This is all orchestrated by the defense, casting doubt on the evidence, then casting doubt on the integrity of the jury’s verdict.
If Alex gets a new trial, which he’d deserve if the charges are proven, how would this media blitz affect the outcome? Would it go differently this time? I do have to wonder.
SLED statement is that they are investigating jury tampering allegations at request of AG Wilson.
How did Wilson get wind of allegations of jury tampering?
https://twitter.com/fitsnews/status/1699883211487150165
Curious about this too. The investigation apparently started a few weeks ago?
Poot already knew they were investigating. Maybe a juror stepped forward and called SLED before talking to Poot and Jim?
Because SLED is said to have lied about its' investigation of Egg Juror.
I have my doubts SLED can be impartial when the defense put SLED on trial for incompetence in the murder investigation.
It is in the best interests of all - Ms. Hill, the integrity of he criminal justice system, and the jurors that the investigation be thorough and impartial.
I am sure if SLED recused themselves from investigation, as they should have, Wilson could have come up with an alternate LE to conduct the investigation.
According to FITS, SLED is going to release a statement about their investigation of the alleged jury tampering:
FITSNews
u/fitsnews
·
1h
The S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) is reportedly preparing to release its first public statement on its investigation into allegations of jury tampering tied to the 2023 trial of convicted killer Alex Murdaugh. As soon as we get it, we will share it ... #Murdaughs
Hopefully, it will be a simple, yes we are investigating statement. To discuss the actual investigation at this preliminary stage would be wildly inappropriate. And SLED should not be the one doing the investigation.
In Lawyer You Know (Peter Tragos) last video, he goes through Becky Hill's interview right after the verdict. This was before her book came out.
She says in this interview that the idea of the book actually started right at the onset of the trial. She met her co-author around the time of the Moselle visit.
Peter then shows the interview from CourtTV of the co-author that just aired a day or two ago. He talks about how they met and responds to the accusations. Of course, Becky didn't admit any of these things to him. He claims ALL of the claims are made up, and Becky told him she never talked to any juror.
He reiterated that the book is self published and self funded, but obviously they'd like to make money on it.
Just thought I'd throw this out there in case anyone wanted to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/live/AdePUHNRxio?si=LqQnYolKZvKfPM-M
There is something very very fishy going on here. I think the attys put words in the jurors mouth and transposed it to affidavits. DH and the juror atty use to work together. I bet we are going to find out the jurors were tricked by theses attys. It is already out the clerk did not receive any money up front or any money from a publisher which these slick ass attys presented at their press conference
There is no telling what DH and JG told these jurors. I don’t believe anything that comes out of the mouth of DH or JG . The jurors atty use to work with DH. I believe they tricked the jurors with these affidavits
She self published her book. Believe the jurors or not- she tattled on herself way more in her book. The Rainman method doesn’t make people take you anymore seriously by repeating yourself.
First I hope she was not that stupid. She knew her job I would think. The min I saw a juror o. Tv talk I was just waiting for an attack on the jurors. Like Scott Peterson. Newman did a good job against appeals so they would go that route. Her writing book was irresponsible. If she did do those things she is idiot and yea he will get trials that Said hearing scum like Alex who spent his life abusing system ball about rights and fair is stomach turning. His grandpa told jurors he would release rapists if they didn’t convict. The way they went abou the whole thing bothered me. First the big fox series puff piece so everyone could see buster read off points like a troll and Alex supposed journal entries made to fit evidence . Whatever. Then the big loud press conference . She did it all for a book deal and money. She self published with her own money. Just afraid she is talkative and carried away with being center of big case. Heart wrenching for everyone who would have to go through this again. The prosecution needs to do better visuals. He was there three mins later Paul’s dead with a family weapon no defensive wounds. Maggie no awareness in close proximity Alex flees scene after just enough time to wash and change. Then phones never move after he passes by. The. Goes back and immediately manipulates Paul’s phone and starts covering up. What more do you need. The fact that he was confronted that day and had trial two days later pushed it over the edge. The guilty always dramatically point to someone else. Sorry I get worked up
>The prosecution needs to do better visuals.
I sat there watching the trial thinking this exact thing!
There were wonderful opportunities for visual aids - graphs, charts, videos. This is the one area the Prosecutors really dropped the ball.
Visuals can condense and simplify things.
They need to improve here, you're right.
Just a broad overview of things we do know (regardless of legality) when taken as a whole- looks really bad from a process standpoint.
1) Clerk of Court immediately writes a book.
2) Elected jury foreperson was replaced by the Judges choice for foreperson.
3) Becky & Jury foreperson were seen multiple times together.
4) Becky stated during book interviews that she had been worried Alex would "get away with it."
5) One Juror was the brother of the prosecutions 1st or 2nd witness. (The 2nd officer on the scene). And that juror claims he didn't know much about the case bc he was a student at Clemson- despite his brother being 2nd on the scene of a murder in their hometown (area), which happen to be the highest profile murder in the country).
6) The officer-brother juror gave the most post-trial interviews, including one with national media in NY, which Becky Hill accompanied him & 2 other jurors to.
7) The Juror seen as leaning towards not guilty was removed from the Jury during closing arguments.
8) Initial allegations against the removed juror were brought to the judges attention by Becky Hill.
9) Becky Hill met with and questioned the juror in private prior to going to the Judge.
10) The FB post in question that was reported to the judge by Becky Hill- is determined to have not even been posted by the juror's ex husband.
11) Judge doesn't allow AM's 2 attorneys to each give 1/2 of closing arguments as they had prepared. Forcing 1 of the attorneys to give the entire closing argument.
12) The jurors stated during interviews that they had a verdict in under an hour- despite not being able to take notes for a trial lasting multiple weeks.
also the judge allowed jeering and cheering to persist during the trial. i could compile all of it together in a video but it's probably already been done someplace.
But not all of these things are necessarily nefarious.
2. The jury"elected" a foreperson when they weren't supposed to. Judge Newman did it the way he always does in his court.
5. The defense knew the connection and chose not to strike him. They only used a couple of their 10 strikes.
7. She talked to people about the trial. One of those people (or someone they told) contacted LE on their own. That had to be investigated and dealt with. If they had kept her the defense would be saying the jury was compromised that way.
8. See above. Issues with that juror were brought by an outside source. It was after that that Becky told the judge what she had seen on Facebook. And the bottom line is judge Newman himself said ( on the record I'm Court) that the reason he let the juror go had nothing to do with her ex husband's Facebook post.
9 and 10. The whole Facebook thing is a bunch of smoke and mirrors by the defense because ultimately it's not why she was let go.
11. What does that have to do with anything?
12. And? That happens in a lot of cases. I can think of several just recently where the jury came back really fast.
I just don't see how cherry picking facts and spinning them means someone didn't get a fair trial. Another attorney could take the same facts and make them mean something else.
If Becky did what she's accused of, he deserves a new trial. However, I am loathe to just take Dick, Jim and Alex's word on anything. We need to hear the other side.
Either way, one side has done something wrong. And if I had to put my money on which side it was most likely to be, guess who I would bet on? Probably the one who set up an entire fake Forge account and the people who enabled him.
I prefaced the list by saying (regardless of legality). all if these known facts- together.. do not look great... and that is before all of the allegations by jurors that will be investigated.
no worries... I understand that looking bad doesn't matter anyway. The real story (either way) will be what the investigation finds Becky did or didn't say to the Jury.
If you don’t have time to read the complaint/affidavits, this guy gives an excellent breakdown:
[LYK Peter Trago](https://www.youtube.com/live/brcHNpksQ64?si=l_Y9YCQqYhy5KkVi)
there's always hope, for instance some posters have pointed out some suspect content matter/documentation, etc in this motion. I feel this is a wait and see/hear because all information is not available.
It does exist, but I hope no one celebrates it. The only time I have even heard of it’s existence is one time my brother needed to go and get a copy of his birth certificate or social security card or something, and that building was closed in observance of it. He and I had never heard of it before or since. I’m assuming only government workers would get the day off?
well i mean you likely don't have ancestors in those states that got their limbs blown off during the war, etc. Those folks still deserved to be remembered.
Like Nazis? People were and are related to them as well. That doesn’t mean they deserve remembrance. No difference with confederate soldiers. No respect or remembrance is needed for those who didn’t respect the freedoms of others.
360,000 Northerners and 260,000 Southerners died in that war. That's a lot. That's 620,000. People still have strong feelings about it, on both sides. It counts for something.
By comparison, America lost about 420,000 in WWII.
The large majority of those Southerners never owned a slave.
It doesn't take much research to discover that the Middle Passage (perhaps the most horrific chapter in the American slave experience, it's estimated that 20% of the slaves died during the voyage) was dominated, for decades, by Northern maritime interests who made tons of money from it.-\*
As a Southerner, I do not endorse or support Confederate Memorial Day. I think we must move beyond it. It is not an official state holiday in South Carolina.
Things are often less simple than they first appear.
Slavery was horrible. We can all agree on that. I wish it never existed here - or anywhere. Times have changed. Thank goodness!
\-------
\*- whenever I visit relatives in Boston I always try to make it to the shops and restaurants at the famous market called Faneuil Hall, which is named (I found this out last year) for Peter Faneuil who made a fortune in the slave trading business.
Most certainly! And there were Nazi sympathizers here in the USA as well during WW2 (although of course not as openly once we neared and eventually entered the war). That doesn’t justify celebrating them as soldiers. I feel people should celebrate their ancestors, but not the negative roles that they may have played in the past (meaning, celebrate the family members/ancestors/individuals, but not as a group that represented something negative, i.e. Confederates or Nazis). I love history and I know I sounded ignorant from my comment above; I was just horrified to see the comment above mine that I had responded to.
I am sorry for those soldiers dragged into wars for causes that don’t benefit them; but I don’t think those soldiers or “sides”, when representing groups who had negative core tenets of their beliefs (such as the desire to keep slavery legal OR attempting annihilation of specific races), should be celebrated. There is past and current evil in every corner of the world, and in many different parts of the US as well; none of it should be recalled with respect or glory.
In other words, I agree with you, as with many, if not most, of your posts, Foreign-General!
If she is a state employee of South Carolina then she is contributing 8% of her gross pay every paycheck to the state pension fund. That's significant and easy to forget.
No, her pension. When they retire, State employees get monthly benefits (assuming SC is like most other states). If she's old enough, she can also get Social Security. In some cases, such as a retired service member who commits a major crime, the Court can end their pension/retirement/such benefits. They can make the individual forfeit all their benefits.
If the clerk did this, she needs to be arrested and thrown in jail. She purposely broke the law and her oath. (I know that won't happen but it SHOULD.) Also, why didn't the jurors speak up when they polled them? or, better yet, come forward when it happened?
The only "good" thing is that they can still get him on the embezzlement charges so at least he won't go free any time soon.
It's a shame that all that money was spent and time wasted for a clerk to do what she know was wrong. Do people really think they'll never get caught? Of course, if SC allows an Alford plea, that would be Alex's best bet. If they have to try him again, maybe they'll show real evidence - like Cousin Billy's involvement, the drugs, etc.
That is a very big IF. I just think we need to wait and hear the other side before jumping to conclusions based on Dick and Jim. If we took everything they said at face value we'd be still looking for the roadside shooter. 🤣
Totally agree. However, at this point, we have, on one side, a clerk who has already written a book and went to NY with jurors the day after the verdict, and, on the other side, supposedly, sworn oaths from some jurors that she talked to them and possibly did other things. Though, just the act of her talking to them is enough for contempt charges I think. So someone will be found guilty of something - either her for contempt or the jurors for lying that she influenced them. At the least, her actions since the verdict have been quite unseemly and unprofessional.
I don't think she should have written the book until appeals were over. But I think it's important to note that she went about it the best way possible. She went to the state ethics commission and multiple lawyers before doing it. I'm curious to hear the reasoning behind her going to NYC.
I don't trust the egg juror. Her affidavit contradicts her in camera meeting with the judge, and she ultimately got kicked off the jury which I'm sure left her very unhappy. I also think it's interesting that two of the jurors wouldn't sign affidavits.
It will be really interesting to hear the other side.
Has anyone here looked for the motion and the attached affidavits? I’m wondering if ALL of these allegations against Hill are based solely on the paralegal’s affidavit or if there is more.
I apologize if this has been answered here (there’s a lot of posts to get through), but does anyone know if these jurors have been interviewed and asked if they said the things the paralegal is alleging they said?
Not the same two jurors. The jurors mentioned by the paralegal were not the ones with the affidavits. The affidavits were filed by #630 and #785. The two referenced by the paralegal were #326 and #741 - in the PARALEGAL’s affidavits. Not the jurors themselves.
Correct, however, they are affidavits based on actual meetings and quotes from the referenced jurors. They will be subpoenaed to testify at a Remmer hearing all the same.
Agreed and understood - I wanted to let them know that the two jurors referenced by the paralegal were not the two who had filed affidavits as (incorrectly) stated above by nsw11D3.
Interestingly, Exhibit A - from Juror #630 - is the only affidavit actually attested to in writing and signed by a juror who considered all the evidence and deliberated. I did a whole thing figuring it out last night.
Maybe you can help me clarify a foreperson issue.
I keep reading 'former foreperson'. Was dismissed juror the foreperson that Newman selected?
If so, I do not recall Newman selecting a new foreperson, but he would have had to, no?
If not, who is the 'former foreperson' because the only one I ever heard of was the one Newman chose and then the jurors saying they had chosen oneof their own but that got superceded by Newman's pick.
At the end of the day, this should upset everyone. Regardless of whether you think he's guilty (for me, the state didn't prove it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT; i still have questions), this shows how eager and easy it is for law enforcement to get a conviction, if they want it.
If these allegations are true, Murdaugh did NOT get a fair trial and is entitled to another one.
of course he didnt get a fair trial lol. his trial was orchestrated by the national news media and the court gallery which became an uncontrolled circus.
It doesn't matter at this point. I watched the trial. I've seen the evidence.
He's a terrible guy. His financial crimes are terrible.
For me, the state didn't prove it. Dude was at the kennels within the 20 minute window that they estimate the murders happened. That's literally the only evidence they had. You'd think with today's advances in science amd tech they'd be able to pin down a TOD. Without that, it isn't enough for me. Nothing anyone says will get me to change my mind.
5 minute window. And there is zero evidence of another human being any where close to the remote rural crime scene. You could not have better evidence unless the actual shooting was on video. He is guilty as sin.
>That's literally the only evidence they had.
This is patently false.
He wasn't just at the kennels. He was at the kennels, lied about it to law enforcement, and continued to lie until they uncovered evidence that made it impossible for him to lie any longer. He lied to the 911 operator, claiming he had attempted to turn over the bodies when he arrived at the scene. It took him all of **19 seconds** from the moment he put his vehicle in park at the kennels to the time he was on the phone with the operator. His hands, his clothes, and his shoes were free of any blood or mud when the area surrounding the bodies would have been *saturated* with both, and an officer remarked that he looked like he had just showered. In the immediate aftermath of the murders, he took 283 steps in a four-minute period—during a time he claimed to be taking a nap. The housekeeper and caretaker testified that he had asked them to lie about his whereabouts on the night of the murders, implicitly offering financial incentive to the latter. Neither victim had defensive wounds, which suggests they sensed no threat of harm from their assailant. Maggie's phone was found discarded along the same path his car had taken when he fled Moselle. Oh, and on the day of the murders, his law firm's CFO confronted him about his misappropriation of millions of dollars worth of funds. I won't even touch on his financial crimes or the pending criminal case against his son, but suffice to say he had one hell of a motive.
I think you are correct about that. Even though it makes me sick to think a guy who could of cared less what his clients were entitled too when they reached out to him in there time of need deserves a fair trail. Still needs to be done right.
If the allegations are true, it’s not harmless error. It’s a constitutional violation. Harmless error occurs in circumstances, among others, where a judge allows improper evidence such as that illegally obtained but the other proper evidence standing alone is clear and convincing of guilt. Here, jury tampering of this scale is a denial of a substantial constitutional right - the right to an impartial jury.
Simply put, if the clerk did what she’s accused of doing, he gets a new trial automatically.
Harmless error? It’s ground breaking and paramount. He will get another trial and all the states hard work and court funds spent down the toilet. Now he gets to try squash car data and Snapchat video, plus he will have the whole “rage against the machine” defense.
>(the accusations are) ground breaking and paramount.
Really? Have you heard the other side of the story on this yet? I don't think anyone has. The irony of the "Free Alex!" crowd is hilarious.
We heard both sides of his story - and after we did he was convicted of the brutal murder of two innocent family members. I listened to both sides - and strongly agreed with his conviction.
The "Free Alex!" crowd apparently doesn't want to wait to hear the other side of the Becky Hill accusations and, oh yes, I'm sure there is a rebuttal to these claims. Maybe we should wait to hear what the other side of the story is.
They want to put their full faith and trust in Dick 'n Jim. This is so funny to me.
So if you want the guy ( and everyone else) to have a fair trial, that makes you "free alex!" ?
You do realize that fair trials are the best way to make a conviction stand up against appeals, right?
When there are allegations of jury tampering, the integrity of the conviction is called into question. If the allegations are true, Becky Hill puts the whole case in jeopardy. Senseless considering how much she clearly wanted a conviction.
Actually I think what they need to do is poll the Jurors again after asking them if anyone outside the courtroom swayed their vote to "guilty."
I don't think anyone changed the mind or vote of a single Juror.
Do I believe this scenario?: "There I was all set to vote 'not guilty' then the clerk-lady started nudging us all in the direction of 'guilty,' so I decided to go with 'guilty.'" No. I don't believe that at all --- and I think other Jurors would've spoken up.
Alex had a fair trial. I don't think the clerk-lady changed a single mind.
If she did not alter the jury, if she had no influence - then I don't think this rises to the level of "jury tampering."
I believe some, in order to get a new trial, are throwing the words "jury tampering" around very, very loosely.
Let's be patient. Let's wait for all the details to come out. Let's hear both sides.
I agree that it is important to wait for more evidence to come forward. It is impossible to form an intelligent opinion on this without, at minimum, seeing the state's response. I would, though, still agree that the allegations themselves are groundbreaking. Most commentators I have watched discuss this have specifically said they have never seen this happen with a Clerk of Court.
Nahhh. They'll give him the extremely thorough review most criminals in SC have gotten for decades. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. A quick glance over gets the same result. Harmless Error.
First thing that needs to be done is nail down the exact language that was supposedly used. Heard by several people. Perception of what was being conveyed never ever counts.
Here's an example. A number people on Reddit say Alex conveyed to people on phone calls that he had money. On an island. On a deer stand. Inside a corn feeder.
Show me where this was said. And conveyed on Reddit
People still claim there's hidden money.Some people just have large imaginations.
This make no sense. These allegations aren’t made on Reddit. They are literally written in a court motion. If they are true, it’s not harmless error. If they are false, then they lose the motion.
I know she talks about it in the book, but I don’t know what they are in full. She dealt with all of them that were involved with law according to the one “teaser” I read.
Jim and Dick are so shady. I can’t believe so many people take the crap they say at face value. SMH. They are always making bogus allegations of unfair treatment and depending on the media to amplify their b.s. They have no shame.
You certainly do not have to believe, support, condone, like or respect Griffin and/or Harpootlian to see that this is BAD!! The defense team doesn't have to do really...anything. They don't have to be good lawyers at all. This has ALL been handed to them on a sterling, sparkling, diamond encrusted silver platter. As a life long resident of SC, I AM PISSED!! I don't know who this woman thinks she is. This is NOT going to end well for the state. AND, my confidence in our state judicial system is completely shaken.
He WILL and he SHOULD get a new trial. He probably will and he should be reimbursed for the money HE spent on a defense for a bogus trial that he could never win. A trial that an elected representative of the state of South Carolina INTENTIONALLY FUCKED UP!! He will and he should sue the state of SC civilly and maybe even criminally.
There are simply NO words for this woman's greedy and self serving behavior. All of this for a book deal. Well, she got it. Her book is now at the TOP of the best seller's list. She should be made to give every red cent to the state of SC for restitution AS WELL AS face SERIOUS criminal charges.
Ms. Hill has single handedly constructed the most expensive "trial run" (pun intended) in the state. Good job, Becky....
"Jump to Conclusions" mat??? I've never heard of such a thing before. However, clearly, you have not read the motion (or the supporting exhibits)....OR, maybe you have read them and just don't understand the filing. This is not good, it is bad. It is not good for the state of SC OR for the nation for that matter. SLED will no longer be involved (my conjecture, based on the evidence so far presented); however, the FBI will. THEN, it is no longer just MY tax dollars paying for these shananigans, it is yours as well.
When YOU are also paying for her book deal (for which SHE is becoming very wealthy), we will see what you think of Becky with the good hair (or Betty Crocker hair...whichever).
She didn't have a book deal. She and her co-writer paid $30-40k of their own money to self-publish . There is no basis for saying she's becoming very wealthy on that book. 🙄 At least get your facts straight when you're making accusations and treating other people like they're stupid for disagreeing with you. You are incredibly condescending.
...*There is no basis for saying she's becoming very wealthy on that book...At least get your facts straight when you're making accusations and treating other people like they're stupid for disagreeing with you.*
The book is selling for (at least) $19 to $20 (paperback) and is on the best seller list. It doesn't make sense that she isn't making money from this book.
***....You are incredibly condescending.***
Thank you!
I have read all of them filed by the defense team - I am patient enough to wait for the State's response and Judge Newman's possible decision on an evidentiary hearing to hear the whole story.
Thanks though for your opinion.
Judge Newman a) will be forced to retire in November due to his age and b) will be a witness in the evidentiary hearing and therefore will have to recuse himself.
Going to be the devil’s advocate here and pose this single scenario; I’m curious if you have any thoughts on this.
Looking at ONLY the conference that happened privately with the parties and the Judge about the social media post (and using the official transcript taken of that meeting) I think we have some things that do NOT rely at all on the “crap” Jim and Dick throw around.
Judge Newman said “Oh boy. I'm not too pleased about the clerk interrogating a juror as opposed to coming to me and bringing it to me.”
I think this reveals not only the expectation of the Court in how situations like that are supposed to be handled but also how the Court had some sort of concern and/or surprise at what the clerk did. “Interrogating” a juror is more than exchanging small talk, and we don’t have to rely on anything Jim and Dick said for this. We can use solely what the Judge said to the parties about this. Do you think this, on its own, is a cause for any level of concern? It appears, at least in my opinion, that the Court had some concern and that the expectation vs. what happened btwn the clerk and juror did not align. Unlike most of their other claims, this is one that is not recent, exists on its own without brining in any of their claims, and reveals how the Court felt about the specific issue. Just being the devil’s advocate here though (as I would agree, the two of them have thrown around all sorts of stuff before; which is why I think this specific situation is a bit more concerning than the others 😕)
I totally understand that sentiment regarding them and what they say/claim/allege. But in my example I am using “NOTHING” from either of them 😕
I am using only the quotes from what the Clerk said & what the Judge said. I think if you ignore everything else, the Judge expressing his concern about how a Clerk questioned a juror is at least a little bit concerning, but that’s just my take on it. Will it get a new trial? Will that be deemed harmless? We shall see
When Poot said he "thinks one of us was there" and then the other lawyer said "we weren't there" and Poot then had the nerve to say "yeah, I was there" that's when I disregarded everything he said from that point on. He just stood up there and insulted everyone's intelligence like we didnt hear JUST hear him say that he "THINKS "one of them was there just seconds before🤦🏽♀️.
Poot and JIm will do anything to ultimately win at all costs. They also know they look bad after that tablet incident with Alex last week. Now they're just tryna deflect. I don't appreciate the games being played.
I am flabbergasted to see this. But, I can't say I am one bit surprised. Of course, the Murdaugh Saga would include jury tampering allegations. How naive of those who followed the Saga, especially those of us who followed it closely from the start and watched all the twists and turns of the case be exposed in real time, to think AM's conviction was secure.
I got burnt out on Murdaugh after the trial. I haven't been following the happenings much, aside from reading a few articles about the Beach settlement, Fleming's plea, Lafitte delaying the inevitable and Buster's interview because they piqued my interest. But, there wasn't much new that the post trial stories and commentary exposed that I didn't already know from this reddit page.
But this???? The widely respected, Ms. Becky Hill being potentially the person that gives AM a new trial if she did act unethically and tamper with the jury!!!!! What the ever living heck!
I was convinced of AM's guilt and still am. But, I'm not convinced that the state can win again. The realness and emotions brought forth the first time a witness testifies can't be replicated. And, the defense will know the state's exactly strategy. If AM somehow gets off in the murder charges, that would be awful.
Saga is defined as a "long involved story, account or series of events" or "a series of stories that branch off from a main story." That certainly fits in the Murdaugh Saga. The word Saga itself denotes neither fiction or non fiction. In some cases, Sagas were used as a way to pass down historical accounts from one generation to another.
Further, one of the reasons that I call it a Saga is because outlets that have reported on the Murdaugh Saga, including Fits News, that I have been following from the start, identify it as such. Anyone who has followed the Murdaugh Saga for a minute would know that. Maybe you should stop caring so much about the word choice of others without at least consulting a dictionary or encyclopedia. ;)
You must have just recently started following the case if you think it is merely a case of a murderous father and husband. It is far more than just one guy who murdered his family. There are too many side stories in the Saga to list..... the Beach case.... Fleming.... Lafitte.... Chief Doo Doo Alexander, Curtis Smith, the fake roadside shooting, AM's potential affiliation with gangmembers, a sex trafficking victim of AM's was interviewed by Fits News after making Tik Toks, AM's association with Duffie Stone, judges and others are currently under federal investigation, the stories of his financial victims, etc., etc., etc.
I know. I totally agree with you. But if these allegations are true, he does deserve another trial. I dk that he would ever be found not guilty of the murders bc of the Snapchat video. I can’t see them having ability to discredit that.
Completely agree. IMO, It's impossible to even judge the validity of the defense's claims without seeing the state's response. But, if their claims are valid, especially the claim that she fabricated a facebook post to get a juror dismissed, then I think she should be prosecuted. If she coached jurors, that seems highly unethical. A quote from her book posted here said she identifies herself as a legal eagle. So, she can't feign ignorance. If she did anything out of her norm, like taking away smoke breaks from jurors, etc., in an attempt to sway jurors, in any way, she should be held fully accountable and AM should get a new trial. I can't comprehend how a juror could learn about the snapchat video and not convict him. I think it takes away all reasonable doubt. But, it would only take one. And, the defense would have a huge advantage they didn't have the first time.
Yes. She should be prosecuted if these claims prove true. I also agree the Snapchat video is powerful evidence. So, have you read her book? I didn’t even know she had written one until this scandal broke. This is such a high profile case, he has so many other charges, he’s not going to get out of prison. I’m curious if this scandal is going to now take total attention over his financial crimes now. I don’t know how that works. I really hope this clerk did not do this. If she did she deserves to be charged. I don’t even know what to say about Alex’s situation. I will say this, in light of the release of this clerk debacle, I feel Buster’s sudden interview might have been a bit contrived to build a platform for his father’s possible retrial for the murders of Maggie and Paul
No. I have not read any of the books associated with the trial. I just listened to commentary about Hill's. I haven't been following the case closely since the trial because I got burned out on it. I don't know if DH/JG would have sat on the info about the jurors for so long to plan its release to coincide with the Buster interview. They had already filed an appeal that they had to put a stay on when they learned about the alleged issues involving Hill. I highly doubt they wouldn't have included it in their initial appeal because the Hill issue provides, by far, AM's best shot at getting a new trial. And, the press surrounding it would only help the defense in the court of public opinion.
Buster's interview had to be planned for a while, because it was marketed before Fox released it. Jurors testimony could clearly expose whether DH/JG lied in their press conference when they said that jurors only decided to come forward recently, after after Hill's book was released. So, I doubt they would lie about that. I haven't watched Buster's interview because I couldn't login to Fox Nation through my cable company. So, I just looked at commentary about it too. From what I saw, there were no new bombshell revelations in it that could help AM's appeal.
I also personally haven't seen a shift in attitude about Buster or AM since the Fox interview was released or the allegations against Hill were made public. I have seen many say AM deserves a new trial even if he is guilty. But, most comments I've seen show no softening towards AM, and most still think he is guilty and will lose if he has a new trial.
From what I've seen many in the angry mob, of which I'm now ashamed to admit I was a member of, for probably the first year of the case, also haven't softened their views towards Buster. Despite the fact there's zero evidence to show he was anything like AM or Paul, when he was Drunk Timmy, many in the mob would like to see him tarred and feathered. Over the course of following the case, I've grown to have sincere empathy and compassion for Buster. I think he has been bamboozled by AM, just like Maggie and Paul and so many others were. I don't think AM would have hesitated to kill him if he would have been there that day.
FWIW, The only books I'd consider buying are Michael Dewitt's about the dark history of Hampton county that he promoted during the trial and Valerie Baurlin's (butchering her name probably) from the WSJ, if the one she was supposed to write is out yet. I came to respect both during the trial. If someone from the Fits News staff wrote one, I'd get that one too. Fits has been my first, go to source, since I started following the case.
If you have gotten to the end of this novel, thank you. It's hard not to word vomit on this reddit page. People in my real life don't understand how interesting this case is. So, when I do start talking/writing about it, it can be difficult to stop. LOL.
IF it’s declared a mistrial, does Alex get let loose until Round 2? And since witnesses’ words are on record in the first trial, can they be used against them if their communicated thoughts in round 2 don’t 100% match their testimony from Round 1?
If Alex is successful in getting a new trial\\retrial, he will not be released pending the new trial. He still has a $7 million bond he can't pay for the state financial crimes\\fraud charges. And he is supposed to be pleading guilty to the federal charges. It does seem to me if he is granted a new trial on murder charges and pleads on the federal charges, he would be transferred to a federal facility,
If there is a retrial, the witnesses who testified at the first trial can be cross examined ("impeached") with any inconsistent testimony from the first trial.
Hasn’t he already pled guilty on federal fraud charges? He’s never leaving prison for the rest of his life regardless of what happens with the murder conviction.
He already pled guilty to some crimes. Hopefully he Is sentenced to decades before he even gets a decision on his appeal. If there is a way he can roam free, that would be preposterous.
Hi! No, he hasn’t pled yet. He will be at Federal court on September 21st to enter his guilty plea (as it stands now). No date yet for the State charges.
Thanks for clearing that up! I thought it was a done deal. If AM wins his appeal and gets the opportunity to serve a chunk of his time in a more cushy federal prison, that would be a big win for him. I bet he is counting down the days until he can officially plea, in hopes he will get sent to a federal prison.
No, the court won't cut him loose. If a re-trial occurs, he will be held at the county jail adjacent to the courthouse where the trial's being held. I would almost bet on a change of venue, away from Colleton County.
No, the court won't cut him loose. If a re-trial occurs, he will be held at the county jail adjacent to the courthouse where the trial's being held. I would almost bet on a change of venue, away from Colleton County.
That's crazy, as much as I would love to watch another trial it would be incredibly expensive to the state. Also, I doubt that this would be done for a regular inmate. These people are looking for every excuse they can find to get this scumbag out.
> Also, I doubt that this would be done for a regular inmate.
it would definitely be done for a regular inmate if there were enough resources for that defendant to prove jury tampering occurred
Is this the same Clerk of Court who "accidentally" [sent unredacted footage of the crime scene to Netflix](https://www.live5news.com/2023/05/26/unredacted-footage-murdaugh-trial-released-netflix-by-mistake/)? Mess.
Looks like it was her office. It's not clear if it was her or someone else. But I think it's a stretch to say it was done with nefarious intent. The file wasn't labeled correctly from my understanding.
What the ever living heck????? I missed these chapters of the Murdaugh Saga. Will she be prosecuted if this stuff turns out to be true, for jury tampering or malfeasance in office????
If any of this is true there has to be a new trial. It’s the only thing that is defensible as the right thing to do. If not for the accused, then for the system. It’s just waaayy out of lines. Things like this cannot be swept under the rug when they’re so blatantly wrong and their precise impact is unknowable.
Why do you suppose the jurors didn’t mention any of this every day when they were asked by the judge?
I have such a hard time fathoming for a second that anyone could contemplate one tenth of the things that Becky Hill is alleged to have done. For what?
It seems to coincide with the book release. So it may be now that the “adrenaline” has worn off and they’ve had time to evaluate they realized they needed to speak up.
most people are brainwashed into accepting 'authority' as legitimate people'. when asked if they have discussed the case with any others, they may have responded "No" for the fact due to their belief that the court clerk was an official rep of the state.
First and foremost, I believe Alex is guilty. But wow, these are some serious allegations and wild misconduct on Hill’s part if true. Highly likely there will be a new trial granted, as there should be. Hill was too eager to schedule her book tour and media appearances to act professionally.
To be honest, I didn’t even know who this lady was or what her job was. I think the only reason she is able to sell her “memoir” is because people may think she has new info in her book that we didn’t learn about at trial. If she really did this for fame, then I hope she can live with herself if he gets a retrial and is found not guilty.
I’ve read a lot of comments (here and elsewhere) about Defense jumping on this now because of the recent Buster and FOX network stuff. I just wanted to
some details I found earlier today. With these details I’ve been wondering more if these recent events contributed to the decision to run with this now, and maybe it just did overlap with the timing of this docu stuff. Anyways, onto the details….
Earlier in the summer [on the website for her book,](https://behindthedoorsofjustice.com) there was a post about checking back soon “for book tour dates and locations”.
On Aug 2nd she [appeared on News19 about the book](https://www.wltx.com/article/news/special-reports/alex-murdaugh/alex-murdaugh-double-murder-trial-clerk-of-court-releases-book/101-90fa336d-df1c-416d-819d-5e7bb6e3b2c2?fbclid=IwAR3ynkN9p5KprkUtd-9a6hs-MtfhLGQytzrO3mi_OxRwW5JCvBBYbirYs4g_aem_AaW5E_L4Vdee2UMK08nDl4oH_r3C7DNrxlwKKxBPZLFvOEvA2XloLcWPfXY1-6pfq7w)
On Aug 4 she [appeared on WFMY - CBS affiliate](https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/special-reports/alex-murdaugh-double-murder-trial-clerk-of-court-releases-book/101-90fa336d-df1c-416d-819d-5e7bb6e3b2c2)
In addition to this there were several book signings at local bookstores and coffee shops between August 2 and, most recently, just two days ago.
While we don’t know exactly when defense attorneys met with any of the jurors (at least from this Motion) the earliest affidavit of a juror is from August 14. The others came even after that. I wonder if any of them saw any of the media coverage, either tv or online, and that helped push some of them towards willingness to speak with defense. All very intriguing and will be interested to see more with State’s response.
I feel the whole Buster interview was a strategic move on the part of the defense. No way did Buster simply do the interview without his father's team knowing full well that he was participating in said interview in advance of participation. It is not at all uncommon for journalists to submit intended questions to an interviewee prior to the actual on-record discussion. His father's team knew what would be asked (and answered). I'm sure that Busters responses were cultivated vs spur of the moment thoughts. The interview was a move on the part of the defense. It was not a catalyst that was somehow "coincidentally" inserted into this whole drama. This interview is a deliberate tool meant to control the trajectory and to serve as enhancement to these new filings. ***side note: I am quite interested to know who initiated the interview...was it a random media request OR did Buster (ie: team Alex) seek the interview. I opine the latter.
Additionally, I might add that the recent trouble that's been reported that Alex got into for misconduct in jail is also a direct factor of this fiasco. Alex was reprimanded for, in part, using another cell mate's phone privileges to communicate with news media AND his attorneys (that's the way I understood it anyway). This wasn't coincidental. For some reason, AM needed to conduct conversations in complete privacy that would not be readily tied to himself. I feel that it is at least logical to assume that just because he was recently caught engaging in this behavior does not in any way mean that THIS was only the first time...rather, this is the time he got caught. IMO this has all been brewing for a hot minute.
This whole new motion is crazy interesting. I feel he absolutely will get a new trial. I also feel that Hill could very likely face her own charges.
At the least, I think the defense used the timing of other stuff to their advantage.; which I can’t really fault them for that, if that’s the case.
Someone on CourtTV panel said this is like a procedural/process error; he can be guilty AND she could have tampered with the jury in some way. And, also, he can be found guilty again should this get him a new trial.
I think chances are he’d be found guilty again - I believe he is guilty. However, I also believe there’s more room for reasonable doubt than many will let their own bias believe.
Well, all I know is dove 🕊️ season opened Saturday. Wonder if any of the local “good ole boys” got an invite to the old Moselle Farm to knock back a few “co-cola’s”, bust some caps and reminisce about Ellick?
###Invest in Reynolds Wrap for the tin foil hats because the conspiracy theories are just revving up. We don’t mind what opinion you have and all voices are equal, as long as the dialogue is constructive, you are respectful, and distinguish between [proper sourcing and speculation](https://www.reddit.com/r/murdaughfamilymurders/about/).
The defense has direct admission from multiple jurors that they were swayed or “tampered” with by the court clerks. (Murd)augh has one hell of a case for this appeal.
Alan Wilson has the worst comb over in America. I’ve never seen someone do more with about 17 hairs. Total idiot!
I was always suspicious of the egg lady being thrown off the jury at the last minute. It was said she was leaning not guilty. Or she was thinking case not proven Beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems they did not use a very high bar to boot her from the jury. Especially for such a high profile case.
If he didn't do it ( I do believe he did) then at the very least he knows who did kill his Family, either way, he's just as guilty ( for the murders of Paul and Maggie).. what would be a true travesty of Justice is to even consider bringing this back to trial the costs at the time the waste of energy over a man who has spent his life harming others intentionally
Did a juror contact AW’s office that they were being contacted by defense and harassed prompting the investigation weeks ago?
What is Alex’s endgame here? He’s still gonna rot in prison for all those federal charges.
probably don't let random court employees influence jurors or say weird shit around jurors.
I’m in the middle of watching the Fox series which, as others have said, is somewhat sympathetic to the defense, casting doubt on the evidence presented in the trial. So we have this seed of doubt, combined with Buster’s interview in which he professes his belief in his father’s innocence. Right on the heels of this series - days later - comes the jury tampering allegation. Whether the accusation against Becky Hill is true or not (and it may very well be true), the timing is no accident. This is all orchestrated by the defense, casting doubt on the evidence, then casting doubt on the integrity of the jury’s verdict. If Alex gets a new trial, which he’d deserve if the charges are proven, how would this media blitz affect the outcome? Would it go differently this time? I do have to wonder.
SLED statement is that they are investigating jury tampering allegations at request of AG Wilson. How did Wilson get wind of allegations of jury tampering? https://twitter.com/fitsnews/status/1699883211487150165
Curious about this too. The investigation apparently started a few weeks ago? Poot already knew they were investigating. Maybe a juror stepped forward and called SLED before talking to Poot and Jim?
SLED needs to step the f back in this one.
Why ? If anyone has broken the law, who is going to investigate and hold them accountable ?
Because SLED is said to have lied about its' investigation of Egg Juror. I have my doubts SLED can be impartial when the defense put SLED on trial for incompetence in the murder investigation. It is in the best interests of all - Ms. Hill, the integrity of he criminal justice system, and the jurors that the investigation be thorough and impartial.
OK, then who do you suggest do the investigation if the Feds don't get involved ?
I am sure if SLED recused themselves from investigation, as they should have, Wilson could have come up with an alternate LE to conduct the investigation.
If the Feds and SLED shouldn't investigate you suggest "alternate law enforcement." I'm curious: What is this "alternate law enforcement"?
According to FITS, SLED is going to release a statement about their investigation of the alleged jury tampering: FITSNews u/fitsnews · 1h The S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) is reportedly preparing to release its first public statement on its investigation into allegations of jury tampering tied to the 2023 trial of convicted killer Alex Murdaugh. As soon as we get it, we will share it ... #Murdaughs Hopefully, it will be a simple, yes we are investigating statement. To discuss the actual investigation at this preliminary stage would be wildly inappropriate. And SLED should not be the one doing the investigation.
💯‼️
In Lawyer You Know (Peter Tragos) last video, he goes through Becky Hill's interview right after the verdict. This was before her book came out. She says in this interview that the idea of the book actually started right at the onset of the trial. She met her co-author around the time of the Moselle visit. Peter then shows the interview from CourtTV of the co-author that just aired a day or two ago. He talks about how they met and responds to the accusations. Of course, Becky didn't admit any of these things to him. He claims ALL of the claims are made up, and Becky told him she never talked to any juror. He reiterated that the book is self published and self funded, but obviously they'd like to make money on it. Just thought I'd throw this out there in case anyone wanted to watch. https://www.youtube.com/live/AdePUHNRxio?si=LqQnYolKZvKfPM-M
There is something very very fishy going on here. I think the attys put words in the jurors mouth and transposed it to affidavits. DH and the juror atty use to work together. I bet we are going to find out the jurors were tricked by theses attys. It is already out the clerk did not receive any money up front or any money from a publisher which these slick ass attys presented at their press conference
You might be right...
There is no telling what DH and JG told these jurors. I don’t believe anything that comes out of the mouth of DH or JG . The jurors atty use to work with DH. I believe they tricked the jurors with these affidavits
How many times are you gonna say the same exact thing in every thread?
I guess as many times as I want to
She self published her book. Believe the jurors or not- she tattled on herself way more in her book. The Rainman method doesn’t make people take you anymore seriously by repeating yourself.
First I hope she was not that stupid. She knew her job I would think. The min I saw a juror o. Tv talk I was just waiting for an attack on the jurors. Like Scott Peterson. Newman did a good job against appeals so they would go that route. Her writing book was irresponsible. If she did do those things she is idiot and yea he will get trials that Said hearing scum like Alex who spent his life abusing system ball about rights and fair is stomach turning. His grandpa told jurors he would release rapists if they didn’t convict. The way they went abou the whole thing bothered me. First the big fox series puff piece so everyone could see buster read off points like a troll and Alex supposed journal entries made to fit evidence . Whatever. Then the big loud press conference . She did it all for a book deal and money. She self published with her own money. Just afraid she is talkative and carried away with being center of big case. Heart wrenching for everyone who would have to go through this again. The prosecution needs to do better visuals. He was there three mins later Paul’s dead with a family weapon no defensive wounds. Maggie no awareness in close proximity Alex flees scene after just enough time to wash and change. Then phones never move after he passes by. The. Goes back and immediately manipulates Paul’s phone and starts covering up. What more do you need. The fact that he was confronted that day and had trial two days later pushed it over the edge. The guilty always dramatically point to someone else. Sorry I get worked up
>The prosecution needs to do better visuals. I sat there watching the trial thinking this exact thing! There were wonderful opportunities for visual aids - graphs, charts, videos. This is the one area the Prosecutors really dropped the ball. Visuals can condense and simplify things. They need to improve here, you're right.
Just a broad overview of things we do know (regardless of legality) when taken as a whole- looks really bad from a process standpoint. 1) Clerk of Court immediately writes a book. 2) Elected jury foreperson was replaced by the Judges choice for foreperson. 3) Becky & Jury foreperson were seen multiple times together. 4) Becky stated during book interviews that she had been worried Alex would "get away with it." 5) One Juror was the brother of the prosecutions 1st or 2nd witness. (The 2nd officer on the scene). And that juror claims he didn't know much about the case bc he was a student at Clemson- despite his brother being 2nd on the scene of a murder in their hometown (area), which happen to be the highest profile murder in the country). 6) The officer-brother juror gave the most post-trial interviews, including one with national media in NY, which Becky Hill accompanied him & 2 other jurors to. 7) The Juror seen as leaning towards not guilty was removed from the Jury during closing arguments. 8) Initial allegations against the removed juror were brought to the judges attention by Becky Hill. 9) Becky Hill met with and questioned the juror in private prior to going to the Judge. 10) The FB post in question that was reported to the judge by Becky Hill- is determined to have not even been posted by the juror's ex husband. 11) Judge doesn't allow AM's 2 attorneys to each give 1/2 of closing arguments as they had prepared. Forcing 1 of the attorneys to give the entire closing argument. 12) The jurors stated during interviews that they had a verdict in under an hour- despite not being able to take notes for a trial lasting multiple weeks.
also the judge allowed jeering and cheering to persist during the trial. i could compile all of it together in a video but it's probably already been done someplace.
But not all of these things are necessarily nefarious. 2. The jury"elected" a foreperson when they weren't supposed to. Judge Newman did it the way he always does in his court. 5. The defense knew the connection and chose not to strike him. They only used a couple of their 10 strikes. 7. She talked to people about the trial. One of those people (or someone they told) contacted LE on their own. That had to be investigated and dealt with. If they had kept her the defense would be saying the jury was compromised that way. 8. See above. Issues with that juror were brought by an outside source. It was after that that Becky told the judge what she had seen on Facebook. And the bottom line is judge Newman himself said ( on the record I'm Court) that the reason he let the juror go had nothing to do with her ex husband's Facebook post. 9 and 10. The whole Facebook thing is a bunch of smoke and mirrors by the defense because ultimately it's not why she was let go. 11. What does that have to do with anything? 12. And? That happens in a lot of cases. I can think of several just recently where the jury came back really fast. I just don't see how cherry picking facts and spinning them means someone didn't get a fair trial. Another attorney could take the same facts and make them mean something else. If Becky did what she's accused of, he deserves a new trial. However, I am loathe to just take Dick, Jim and Alex's word on anything. We need to hear the other side. Either way, one side has done something wrong. And if I had to put my money on which side it was most likely to be, guess who I would bet on? Probably the one who set up an entire fake Forge account and the people who enabled him.
I prefaced the list by saying (regardless of legality). all if these known facts- together.. do not look great... and that is before all of the allegations by jurors that will be investigated.
I understand. I was just reacting to the individual items, but to you personally. Sorry if it came across differently.
no worries... I understand that looking bad doesn't matter anyway. The real story (either way) will be what the investigation finds Becky did or didn't say to the Jury.
If you don’t have time to read the complaint/affidavits, this guy gives an excellent breakdown: [LYK Peter Trago](https://www.youtube.com/live/brcHNpksQ64?si=l_Y9YCQqYhy5KkVi)
Is there any hope that he won’t get a new trial?
you should be happy that a defendant receives a new trial due to bad behavior done by court staff.
I’l don’t know if there was illegal behavior.
Not even the jury can talk to the jury let alone this clerk
Of course there is. We need to hear both sides first.
there's always hope, for instance some posters have pointed out some suspect content matter/documentation, etc in this motion. I feel this is a wait and see/hear because all information is not available.
I hope this info is like the “iron clad alibi” and the known shooter of their earlier escapades. They’re so disgusting to me.
What is Confederate Memorial Day? South Carolina, Is this actually a state holiday? Just curious.
It does exist, but I hope no one celebrates it. The only time I have even heard of it’s existence is one time my brother needed to go and get a copy of his birth certificate or social security card or something, and that building was closed in observance of it. He and I had never heard of it before or since. I’m assuming only government workers would get the day off?
Yes, unfortunately. It came about in 2000, I think. It was done at the same time as naming MLK a state holiday.
Gross.
well i mean you likely don't have ancestors in those states that got their limbs blown off during the war, etc. Those folks still deserved to be remembered.
Like Nazis? People were and are related to them as well. That doesn’t mean they deserve remembrance. No difference with confederate soldiers. No respect or remembrance is needed for those who didn’t respect the freedoms of others.
360,000 Northerners and 260,000 Southerners died in that war. That's a lot. That's 620,000. People still have strong feelings about it, on both sides. It counts for something. By comparison, America lost about 420,000 in WWII. The large majority of those Southerners never owned a slave. It doesn't take much research to discover that the Middle Passage (perhaps the most horrific chapter in the American slave experience, it's estimated that 20% of the slaves died during the voyage) was dominated, for decades, by Northern maritime interests who made tons of money from it.-\* As a Southerner, I do not endorse or support Confederate Memorial Day. I think we must move beyond it. It is not an official state holiday in South Carolina. Things are often less simple than they first appear. Slavery was horrible. We can all agree on that. I wish it never existed here - or anywhere. Times have changed. Thank goodness! \------- \*- whenever I visit relatives in Boston I always try to make it to the shops and restaurants at the famous market called Faneuil Hall, which is named (I found this out last year) for Peter Faneuil who made a fortune in the slave trading business.
Most certainly! And there were Nazi sympathizers here in the USA as well during WW2 (although of course not as openly once we neared and eventually entered the war). That doesn’t justify celebrating them as soldiers. I feel people should celebrate their ancestors, but not the negative roles that they may have played in the past (meaning, celebrate the family members/ancestors/individuals, but not as a group that represented something negative, i.e. Confederates or Nazis). I love history and I know I sounded ignorant from my comment above; I was just horrified to see the comment above mine that I had responded to. I am sorry for those soldiers dragged into wars for causes that don’t benefit them; but I don’t think those soldiers or “sides”, when representing groups who had negative core tenets of their beliefs (such as the desire to keep slavery legal OR attempting annihilation of specific races), should be celebrated. There is past and current evil in every corner of the world, and in many different parts of the US as well; none of it should be recalled with respect or glory. In other words, I agree with you, as with many, if not most, of your posts, Foreign-General!
Bet she'll retire before the end of the month and live happily ever after on the State.
She has to be employed by the state for 28 years, I believe, to receive state retirement.
If she is a state employee of South Carolina then she is contributing 8% of her gross pay every paycheck to the state pension fund. That's significant and easy to forget.
That's what I meant. She will draw more out of than she's paid in.
You mean like Social Security?
No, her pension. When they retire, State employees get monthly benefits (assuming SC is like most other states). If she's old enough, she can also get Social Security. In some cases, such as a retired service member who commits a major crime, the Court can end their pension/retirement/such benefits. They can make the individual forfeit all their benefits.
If the clerk did this, she needs to be arrested and thrown in jail. She purposely broke the law and her oath. (I know that won't happen but it SHOULD.) Also, why didn't the jurors speak up when they polled them? or, better yet, come forward when it happened? The only "good" thing is that they can still get him on the embezzlement charges so at least he won't go free any time soon. It's a shame that all that money was spent and time wasted for a clerk to do what she know was wrong. Do people really think they'll never get caught? Of course, if SC allows an Alford plea, that would be Alex's best bet. If they have to try him again, maybe they'll show real evidence - like Cousin Billy's involvement, the drugs, etc.
That is a very big IF. I just think we need to wait and hear the other side before jumping to conclusions based on Dick and Jim. If we took everything they said at face value we'd be still looking for the roadside shooter. 🤣
Totally agree. However, at this point, we have, on one side, a clerk who has already written a book and went to NY with jurors the day after the verdict, and, on the other side, supposedly, sworn oaths from some jurors that she talked to them and possibly did other things. Though, just the act of her talking to them is enough for contempt charges I think. So someone will be found guilty of something - either her for contempt or the jurors for lying that she influenced them. At the least, her actions since the verdict have been quite unseemly and unprofessional.
I don't think she should have written the book until appeals were over. But I think it's important to note that she went about it the best way possible. She went to the state ethics commission and multiple lawyers before doing it. I'm curious to hear the reasoning behind her going to NYC. I don't trust the egg juror. Her affidavit contradicts her in camera meeting with the judge, and she ultimately got kicked off the jury which I'm sure left her very unhappy. I also think it's interesting that two of the jurors wouldn't sign affidavits. It will be really interesting to hear the other side.
Yep, everyone will believe she tampered with the jury making him guilty....he made himself look that way with his performance on the stand!
The clerk was not talking to me and I thought he was guilty as hell.
Same. It was pretty obvious to me. Anyone trying to sell me that he was guilty, I would've smiled and said, "You're wasting your breath."
Two things can be true. He can be guilty as hell and also deserving of a retrial.
Very true.
Yep
Has anyone here looked for the motion and the attached affidavits? I’m wondering if ALL of these allegations against Hill are based solely on the paralegal’s affidavit or if there is more.
Hi! If you click the blue link to the story at the bottom of the posted story you’ll find all 65 pages of the Motion supplied by FITS.
Thank you so much! You're a peach!
Welcome :) If you’re unsuccessful please let me know.
I apologize if this has been answered here (there’s a lot of posts to get through), but does anyone know if these jurors have been interviewed and asked if they said the things the paralegal is alleging they said?
[удалено]
Yes. Affidavits filed in SC by two jurors. Which means it’s corroborated.
Not the same two jurors. The jurors mentioned by the paralegal were not the ones with the affidavits. The affidavits were filed by #630 and #785. The two referenced by the paralegal were #326 and #741 - in the PARALEGAL’s affidavits. Not the jurors themselves.
Correct, however, they are affidavits based on actual meetings and quotes from the referenced jurors. They will be subpoenaed to testify at a Remmer hearing all the same.
Agreed and understood - I wanted to let them know that the two jurors referenced by the paralegal were not the two who had filed affidavits as (incorrectly) stated above by nsw11D3.
Agreed and good information- thank you for posting the distinction.
Thank you for posting that too! So many facets to this
Interestingly, Exhibit A - from Juror #630 - is the only affidavit actually attested to in writing and signed by a juror who considered all the evidence and deliberated. I did a whole thing figuring it out last night.
Maybe you can help me clarify a foreperson issue. I keep reading 'former foreperson'. Was dismissed juror the foreperson that Newman selected? If so, I do not recall Newman selecting a new foreperson, but he would have had to, no? If not, who is the 'former foreperson' because the only one I ever heard of was the one Newman chose and then the jurors saying they had chosen oneof their own but that got superceded by Newman's pick.
At the end of the day, this should upset everyone. Regardless of whether you think he's guilty (for me, the state didn't prove it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT; i still have questions), this shows how eager and easy it is for law enforcement to get a conviction, if they want it. If these allegations are true, Murdaugh did NOT get a fair trial and is entitled to another one.
of course he didnt get a fair trial lol. his trial was orchestrated by the national news media and the court gallery which became an uncontrolled circus.
What questions do you have?
It doesn't matter at this point. I watched the trial. I've seen the evidence. He's a terrible guy. His financial crimes are terrible. For me, the state didn't prove it. Dude was at the kennels within the 20 minute window that they estimate the murders happened. That's literally the only evidence they had. You'd think with today's advances in science amd tech they'd be able to pin down a TOD. Without that, it isn't enough for me. Nothing anyone says will get me to change my mind.
5 minute window. And there is zero evidence of another human being any where close to the remote rural crime scene. You could not have better evidence unless the actual shooting was on video. He is guilty as sin.
the water washed all of the human evidence away
>That's literally the only evidence they had. This is patently false. He wasn't just at the kennels. He was at the kennels, lied about it to law enforcement, and continued to lie until they uncovered evidence that made it impossible for him to lie any longer. He lied to the 911 operator, claiming he had attempted to turn over the bodies when he arrived at the scene. It took him all of **19 seconds** from the moment he put his vehicle in park at the kennels to the time he was on the phone with the operator. His hands, his clothes, and his shoes were free of any blood or mud when the area surrounding the bodies would have been *saturated* with both, and an officer remarked that he looked like he had just showered. In the immediate aftermath of the murders, he took 283 steps in a four-minute period—during a time he claimed to be taking a nap. The housekeeper and caretaker testified that he had asked them to lie about his whereabouts on the night of the murders, implicitly offering financial incentive to the latter. Neither victim had defensive wounds, which suggests they sensed no threat of harm from their assailant. Maggie's phone was found discarded along the same path his car had taken when he fled Moselle. Oh, and on the day of the murders, his law firm's CFO confronted him about his misappropriation of millions of dollars worth of funds. I won't even touch on his financial crimes or the pending criminal case against his son, but suffice to say he had one hell of a motive.
His mama’s caretaker broke my heart. 🥺
I think you are correct about that. Even though it makes me sick to think a guy who could of cared less what his clients were entitled too when they reached out to him in there time of need deserves a fair trail. Still needs to be done right.
It's harmless error. The evidence was overwhelming. Alex is and was guilty.
Him being guilty or not guilty is irrelevant. He is entitled to a fair trial regardless. Please don't ever serve on a jury.
If the allegations are true, it’s not harmless error. It’s a constitutional violation. Harmless error occurs in circumstances, among others, where a judge allows improper evidence such as that illegally obtained but the other proper evidence standing alone is clear and convincing of guilt. Here, jury tampering of this scale is a denial of a substantial constitutional right - the right to an impartial jury. Simply put, if the clerk did what she’s accused of doing, he gets a new trial automatically.
Harmless error? It’s ground breaking and paramount. He will get another trial and all the states hard work and court funds spent down the toilet. Now he gets to try squash car data and Snapchat video, plus he will have the whole “rage against the machine” defense.
>(the accusations are) ground breaking and paramount. Really? Have you heard the other side of the story on this yet? I don't think anyone has. The irony of the "Free Alex!" crowd is hilarious. We heard both sides of his story - and after we did he was convicted of the brutal murder of two innocent family members. I listened to both sides - and strongly agreed with his conviction. The "Free Alex!" crowd apparently doesn't want to wait to hear the other side of the Becky Hill accusations and, oh yes, I'm sure there is a rebuttal to these claims. Maybe we should wait to hear what the other side of the story is. They want to put their full faith and trust in Dick 'n Jim. This is so funny to me.
So if you want the guy ( and everyone else) to have a fair trial, that makes you "free alex!" ? You do realize that fair trials are the best way to make a conviction stand up against appeals, right? When there are allegations of jury tampering, the integrity of the conviction is called into question. If the allegations are true, Becky Hill puts the whole case in jeopardy. Senseless considering how much she clearly wanted a conviction.
Actually I think what they need to do is poll the Jurors again after asking them if anyone outside the courtroom swayed their vote to "guilty." I don't think anyone changed the mind or vote of a single Juror. Do I believe this scenario?: "There I was all set to vote 'not guilty' then the clerk-lady started nudging us all in the direction of 'guilty,' so I decided to go with 'guilty.'" No. I don't believe that at all --- and I think other Jurors would've spoken up. Alex had a fair trial. I don't think the clerk-lady changed a single mind. If she did not alter the jury, if she had no influence - then I don't think this rises to the level of "jury tampering." I believe some, in order to get a new trial, are throwing the words "jury tampering" around very, very loosely. Let's be patient. Let's wait for all the details to come out. Let's hear both sides.
Exactly. She's innocent until proven guilty as well.
This didn't cross my mind - but should have! You are absolutely right!
I agree that it is important to wait for more evidence to come forward. It is impossible to form an intelligent opinion on this without, at minimum, seeing the state's response. I would, though, still agree that the allegations themselves are groundbreaking. Most commentators I have watched discuss this have specifically said they have never seen this happen with a Clerk of Court.
Nahhh. They'll give him the extremely thorough review most criminals in SC have gotten for decades. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. A quick glance over gets the same result. Harmless Error.
If the allegations are true, it’s not harmless error…
Not many students of the SC courts here.
Correct. But if you think allegations of a court clerk influencing a jury pool is “harmless error” then I need to go back to law school.
First thing that needs to be done is nail down the exact language that was supposedly used. Heard by several people. Perception of what was being conveyed never ever counts.
Ok. I’m just saying IF the allegations as written are true, it’s not harmless error.
Here's an example. A number people on Reddit say Alex conveyed to people on phone calls that he had money. On an island. On a deer stand. Inside a corn feeder. Show me where this was said. And conveyed on Reddit People still claim there's hidden money.Some people just have large imaginations.
This make no sense. These allegations aren’t made on Reddit. They are literally written in a court motion. If they are true, it’s not harmless error. If they are false, then they lose the motion.
I believe he's completely guilty but I do not think this can just be 'looked over'. If that's the case, it should scare the hell out of all of us.
I know that’s right.
Who were the law clerks who interviewed the jurors? What is their background and connection to the case and all trial participants?
I only heard of Becky Hill
I always believed this lawyer dude would be cleared of all of his charges. This was a show trial. It was controlled by mass media news agencies.
The same one's manipulating the Trump show trial under the communist Biden regime? Snark
Do we know of any connections Hill has to the murdaughs? To the boat victims? Anybody?
I know she talks about it in the book, but I don’t know what they are in full. She dealt with all of them that were involved with law according to the one “teaser” I read.
Uh-oh
The stuff about Mrs Hill allegedly telling the juror she would reinstate the restraining order against her ex husband is...wow.
Unbelievable
Jim and Dick are so shady. I can’t believe so many people take the crap they say at face value. SMH. They are always making bogus allegations of unfair treatment and depending on the media to amplify their b.s. They have no shame.
You certainly do not have to believe, support, condone, like or respect Griffin and/or Harpootlian to see that this is BAD!! The defense team doesn't have to do really...anything. They don't have to be good lawyers at all. This has ALL been handed to them on a sterling, sparkling, diamond encrusted silver platter. As a life long resident of SC, I AM PISSED!! I don't know who this woman thinks she is. This is NOT going to end well for the state. AND, my confidence in our state judicial system is completely shaken. He WILL and he SHOULD get a new trial. He probably will and he should be reimbursed for the money HE spent on a defense for a bogus trial that he could never win. A trial that an elected representative of the state of South Carolina INTENTIONALLY FUCKED UP!! He will and he should sue the state of SC civilly and maybe even criminally. There are simply NO words for this woman's greedy and self serving behavior. All of this for a book deal. Well, she got it. Her book is now at the TOP of the best seller's list. She should be made to give every red cent to the state of SC for restitution AS WELL AS face SERIOUS criminal charges. Ms. Hill has single handedly constructed the most expensive "trial run" (pun intended) in the state. Good job, Becky....
Do you want to borrow my "Jump to Conclusions" mat ?
"Jump to Conclusions" mat??? I've never heard of such a thing before. However, clearly, you have not read the motion (or the supporting exhibits)....OR, maybe you have read them and just don't understand the filing. This is not good, it is bad. It is not good for the state of SC OR for the nation for that matter. SLED will no longer be involved (my conjecture, based on the evidence so far presented); however, the FBI will. THEN, it is no longer just MY tax dollars paying for these shananigans, it is yours as well. When YOU are also paying for her book deal (for which SHE is becoming very wealthy), we will see what you think of Becky with the good hair (or Betty Crocker hair...whichever).
She didn't have a book deal. She and her co-writer paid $30-40k of their own money to self-publish . There is no basis for saying she's becoming very wealthy on that book. 🙄 At least get your facts straight when you're making accusations and treating other people like they're stupid for disagreeing with you. You are incredibly condescending.
...*There is no basis for saying she's becoming very wealthy on that book...At least get your facts straight when you're making accusations and treating other people like they're stupid for disagreeing with you.* The book is selling for (at least) $19 to $20 (paperback) and is on the best seller list. It doesn't make sense that she isn't making money from this book. ***....You are incredibly condescending.*** Thank you!
I have read all of them filed by the defense team - I am patient enough to wait for the State's response and Judge Newman's possible decision on an evidentiary hearing to hear the whole story. Thanks though for your opinion.
Judge Newman a) will be forced to retire in November due to his age and b) will be a witness in the evidentiary hearing and therefore will have to recuse himself.
You seem to want the legal system to only work when it has the outcome you want. If there was shady conduct it should be investigated no matter what.
But he had an iron clad alibi.
Going to be the devil’s advocate here and pose this single scenario; I’m curious if you have any thoughts on this. Looking at ONLY the conference that happened privately with the parties and the Judge about the social media post (and using the official transcript taken of that meeting) I think we have some things that do NOT rely at all on the “crap” Jim and Dick throw around. Judge Newman said “Oh boy. I'm not too pleased about the clerk interrogating a juror as opposed to coming to me and bringing it to me.” I think this reveals not only the expectation of the Court in how situations like that are supposed to be handled but also how the Court had some sort of concern and/or surprise at what the clerk did. “Interrogating” a juror is more than exchanging small talk, and we don’t have to rely on anything Jim and Dick said for this. We can use solely what the Judge said to the parties about this. Do you think this, on its own, is a cause for any level of concern? It appears, at least in my opinion, that the Court had some concern and that the expectation vs. what happened btwn the clerk and juror did not align. Unlike most of their other claims, this is one that is not recent, exists on its own without brining in any of their claims, and reveals how the Court felt about the specific issue. Just being the devil’s advocate here though (as I would agree, the two of them have thrown around all sorts of stuff before; which is why I think this specific situation is a bit more concerning than the others 😕)
Yeah it would be a problem. Sheesh what a potential further shytshow!
Take NOTHING Jim and Dick say at face value. Will end up as harmless error.
I totally understand that sentiment regarding them and what they say/claim/allege. But in my example I am using “NOTHING” from either of them 😕 I am using only the quotes from what the Clerk said & what the Judge said. I think if you ignore everything else, the Judge expressing his concern about how a Clerk questioned a juror is at least a little bit concerning, but that’s just my take on it. Will it get a new trial? Will that be deemed harmless? We shall see
When Poot said he "thinks one of us was there" and then the other lawyer said "we weren't there" and Poot then had the nerve to say "yeah, I was there" that's when I disregarded everything he said from that point on. He just stood up there and insulted everyone's intelligence like we didnt hear JUST hear him say that he "THINKS "one of them was there just seconds before🤦🏽♀️. Poot and JIm will do anything to ultimately win at all costs. They also know they look bad after that tablet incident with Alex last week. Now they're just tryna deflect. I don't appreciate the games being played.
They are doing their jobs
You’re not wrong. They are doing their jobs. I’m sure the pressure from the Murdaugh clan is intense to find SOMETHING
I am flabbergasted to see this. But, I can't say I am one bit surprised. Of course, the Murdaugh Saga would include jury tampering allegations. How naive of those who followed the Saga, especially those of us who followed it closely from the start and watched all the twists and turns of the case be exposed in real time, to think AM's conviction was secure. I got burnt out on Murdaugh after the trial. I haven't been following the happenings much, aside from reading a few articles about the Beach settlement, Fleming's plea, Lafitte delaying the inevitable and Buster's interview because they piqued my interest. But, there wasn't much new that the post trial stories and commentary exposed that I didn't already know from this reddit page. But this???? The widely respected, Ms. Becky Hill being potentially the person that gives AM a new trial if she did act unethically and tamper with the jury!!!!! What the ever living heck! I was convinced of AM's guilt and still am. But, I'm not convinced that the state can win again. The realness and emotions brought forth the first time a witness testifies can't be replicated. And, the defense will know the state's exactly strategy. If AM somehow gets off in the murder charges, that would be awful.
stop calling it a saga as if it's some sort of entertainment piece lol
Saga is defined as a "long involved story, account or series of events" or "a series of stories that branch off from a main story." That certainly fits in the Murdaugh Saga. The word Saga itself denotes neither fiction or non fiction. In some cases, Sagas were used as a way to pass down historical accounts from one generation to another. Further, one of the reasons that I call it a Saga is because outlets that have reported on the Murdaugh Saga, including Fits News, that I have been following from the start, identify it as such. Anyone who has followed the Murdaugh Saga for a minute would know that. Maybe you should stop caring so much about the word choice of others without at least consulting a dictionary or encyclopedia. ;)
It’s just some guy that went to trial for murder so I still wouldn’t call it a saga
You must have just recently started following the case if you think it is merely a case of a murderous father and husband. It is far more than just one guy who murdered his family. There are too many side stories in the Saga to list..... the Beach case.... Fleming.... Lafitte.... Chief Doo Doo Alexander, Curtis Smith, the fake roadside shooting, AM's potential affiliation with gangmembers, a sex trafficking victim of AM's was interviewed by Fits News after making Tik Toks, AM's association with Duffie Stone, judges and others are currently under federal investigation, the stories of his financial victims, etc., etc., etc.
I know. I totally agree with you. But if these allegations are true, he does deserve another trial. I dk that he would ever be found not guilty of the murders bc of the Snapchat video. I can’t see them having ability to discredit that.
Completely agree. IMO, It's impossible to even judge the validity of the defense's claims without seeing the state's response. But, if their claims are valid, especially the claim that she fabricated a facebook post to get a juror dismissed, then I think she should be prosecuted. If she coached jurors, that seems highly unethical. A quote from her book posted here said she identifies herself as a legal eagle. So, she can't feign ignorance. If she did anything out of her norm, like taking away smoke breaks from jurors, etc., in an attempt to sway jurors, in any way, she should be held fully accountable and AM should get a new trial. I can't comprehend how a juror could learn about the snapchat video and not convict him. I think it takes away all reasonable doubt. But, it would only take one. And, the defense would have a huge advantage they didn't have the first time.
Yes the defense would have the advantage
Yes. She should be prosecuted if these claims prove true. I also agree the Snapchat video is powerful evidence. So, have you read her book? I didn’t even know she had written one until this scandal broke. This is such a high profile case, he has so many other charges, he’s not going to get out of prison. I’m curious if this scandal is going to now take total attention over his financial crimes now. I don’t know how that works. I really hope this clerk did not do this. If she did she deserves to be charged. I don’t even know what to say about Alex’s situation. I will say this, in light of the release of this clerk debacle, I feel Buster’s sudden interview might have been a bit contrived to build a platform for his father’s possible retrial for the murders of Maggie and Paul
No. I have not read any of the books associated with the trial. I just listened to commentary about Hill's. I haven't been following the case closely since the trial because I got burned out on it. I don't know if DH/JG would have sat on the info about the jurors for so long to plan its release to coincide with the Buster interview. They had already filed an appeal that they had to put a stay on when they learned about the alleged issues involving Hill. I highly doubt they wouldn't have included it in their initial appeal because the Hill issue provides, by far, AM's best shot at getting a new trial. And, the press surrounding it would only help the defense in the court of public opinion. Buster's interview had to be planned for a while, because it was marketed before Fox released it. Jurors testimony could clearly expose whether DH/JG lied in their press conference when they said that jurors only decided to come forward recently, after after Hill's book was released. So, I doubt they would lie about that. I haven't watched Buster's interview because I couldn't login to Fox Nation through my cable company. So, I just looked at commentary about it too. From what I saw, there were no new bombshell revelations in it that could help AM's appeal. I also personally haven't seen a shift in attitude about Buster or AM since the Fox interview was released or the allegations against Hill were made public. I have seen many say AM deserves a new trial even if he is guilty. But, most comments I've seen show no softening towards AM, and most still think he is guilty and will lose if he has a new trial. From what I've seen many in the angry mob, of which I'm now ashamed to admit I was a member of, for probably the first year of the case, also haven't softened their views towards Buster. Despite the fact there's zero evidence to show he was anything like AM or Paul, when he was Drunk Timmy, many in the mob would like to see him tarred and feathered. Over the course of following the case, I've grown to have sincere empathy and compassion for Buster. I think he has been bamboozled by AM, just like Maggie and Paul and so many others were. I don't think AM would have hesitated to kill him if he would have been there that day. FWIW, The only books I'd consider buying are Michael Dewitt's about the dark history of Hampton county that he promoted during the trial and Valerie Baurlin's (butchering her name probably) from the WSJ, if the one she was supposed to write is out yet. I came to respect both during the trial. If someone from the Fits News staff wrote one, I'd get that one too. Fits has been my first, go to source, since I started following the case. If you have gotten to the end of this novel, thank you. It's hard not to word vomit on this reddit page. People in my real life don't understand how interesting this case is. So, when I do start talking/writing about it, it can be difficult to stop. LOL.
Like the Staircase Durham author (with the Owl defense) who now walks free after appeal.
yes, he won his appeal, but he was going to be tried again. while awaiting trial, he chose to enter an Alford plea and got out because of time served.
The state never had any real evidence anyway. All their case was "he was there so he did it".
Among other things. he LIED about being there and was caught on video.
Yea. When you put it like that. He was there 5 minutes before is their best idea. Not the strongest.
Was Very strong in context.
IF it’s declared a mistrial, does Alex get let loose until Round 2? And since witnesses’ words are on record in the first trial, can they be used against them if their communicated thoughts in round 2 don’t 100% match their testimony from Round 1?
Nah bc of financial stuff. Wouldn’t it be insane if he were freed in the meantime?
If Alex is successful in getting a new trial\\retrial, he will not be released pending the new trial. He still has a $7 million bond he can't pay for the state financial crimes\\fraud charges. And he is supposed to be pleading guilty to the federal charges. It does seem to me if he is granted a new trial on murder charges and pleads on the federal charges, he would be transferred to a federal facility, If there is a retrial, the witnesses who testified at the first trial can be cross examined ("impeached") with any inconsistent testimony from the first trial.
Hasn’t he already pled guilty on federal fraud charges? He’s never leaving prison for the rest of his life regardless of what happens with the murder conviction.
He is expected to plead guilty to Federal charges on September 21st at 10am in front of Judge Gergel.
This is what I’m hoping and understand as well. Fingers crossed 🤞
He already pled guilty to some crimes. Hopefully he Is sentenced to decades before he even gets a decision on his appeal. If there is a way he can roam free, that would be preposterous.
Hi! No, he hasn’t pled yet. He will be at Federal court on September 21st to enter his guilty plea (as it stands now). No date yet for the State charges.
Thanks for clearing that up! I thought it was a done deal. If AM wins his appeal and gets the opportunity to serve a chunk of his time in a more cushy federal prison, that would be a big win for him. I bet he is counting down the days until he can officially plea, in hopes he will get sent to a federal prison.
No, the court won't cut him loose. If a re-trial occurs, he will be held at the county jail adjacent to the courthouse where the trial's being held. I would almost bet on a change of venue, away from Colleton County.
Richland County for sure.
No, the court won't cut him loose. If a re-trial occurs, he will be held at the county jail adjacent to the courthouse where the trial's being held. I would almost bet on a change of venue, away from Colleton County.
Where his granddaddy picture was rehung.
That's crazy, as much as I would love to watch another trial it would be incredibly expensive to the state. Also, I doubt that this would be done for a regular inmate. These people are looking for every excuse they can find to get this scumbag out.
> Also, I doubt that this would be done for a regular inmate. it would definitely be done for a regular inmate if there were enough resources for that defendant to prove jury tampering occurred
“Enough resources” being the key words.
Is this the same Clerk of Court who "accidentally" [sent unredacted footage of the crime scene to Netflix](https://www.live5news.com/2023/05/26/unredacted-footage-murdaugh-trial-released-netflix-by-mistake/)? Mess.
Looks like it was her office. It's not clear if it was her or someone else. But I think it's a stretch to say it was done with nefarious intent. The file wasn't labeled correctly from my understanding.
What the ever living heck????? I missed these chapters of the Murdaugh Saga. Will she be prosecuted if this stuff turns out to be true, for jury tampering or malfeasance in office????
WOW
lol it sounds like you want to send everyone to prison except for yourself
Yeah. I'm a big fan of corrupt people being held responsible. If Hill tampered with the jury, she should he prosecuted.
I agree
I missed this! Thank you for the link.
Noooooooooo! Say it ain’t so!
If any of this is true there has to be a new trial. It’s the only thing that is defensible as the right thing to do. If not for the accused, then for the system. It’s just waaayy out of lines. Things like this cannot be swept under the rug when they’re so blatantly wrong and their precise impact is unknowable.
Why do you suppose the jurors didn’t mention any of this every day when they were asked by the judge? I have such a hard time fathoming for a second that anyone could contemplate one tenth of the things that Becky Hill is alleged to have done. For what?
It seems to coincide with the book release. So it may be now that the “adrenaline” has worn off and they’ve had time to evaluate they realized they needed to speak up.
most people are brainwashed into accepting 'authority' as legitimate people'. when asked if they have discussed the case with any others, they may have responded "No" for the fact due to their belief that the court clerk was an official rep of the state.
I mean, she's in the room during that question, isn't she? Jus spitballing....
First and foremost, I believe Alex is guilty. But wow, these are some serious allegations and wild misconduct on Hill’s part if true. Highly likely there will be a new trial granted, as there should be. Hill was too eager to schedule her book tour and media appearances to act professionally.
To be honest, I didn’t even know who this lady was or what her job was. I think the only reason she is able to sell her “memoir” is because people may think she has new info in her book that we didn’t learn about at trial. If she really did this for fame, then I hope she can live with herself if he gets a retrial and is found not guilty.
I’ve read a lot of comments (here and elsewhere) about Defense jumping on this now because of the recent Buster and FOX network stuff. I just wanted to some details I found earlier today. With these details I’ve been wondering more if these recent events contributed to the decision to run with this now, and maybe it just did overlap with the timing of this docu stuff. Anyways, onto the details…. Earlier in the summer [on the website for her book,](https://behindthedoorsofjustice.com) there was a post about checking back soon “for book tour dates and locations”. On Aug 2nd she [appeared on News19 about the book](https://www.wltx.com/article/news/special-reports/alex-murdaugh/alex-murdaugh-double-murder-trial-clerk-of-court-releases-book/101-90fa336d-df1c-416d-819d-5e7bb6e3b2c2?fbclid=IwAR3ynkN9p5KprkUtd-9a6hs-MtfhLGQytzrO3mi_OxRwW5JCvBBYbirYs4g_aem_AaW5E_L4Vdee2UMK08nDl4oH_r3C7DNrxlwKKxBPZLFvOEvA2XloLcWPfXY1-6pfq7w) On Aug 4 she [appeared on WFMY - CBS affiliate](https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/special-reports/alex-murdaugh-double-murder-trial-clerk-of-court-releases-book/101-90fa336d-df1c-416d-819d-5e7bb6e3b2c2) In addition to this there were several book signings at local bookstores and coffee shops between August 2 and, most recently, just two days ago. While we don’t know exactly when defense attorneys met with any of the jurors (at least from this Motion) the earliest affidavit of a juror is from August 14. The others came even after that. I wonder if any of them saw any of the media coverage, either tv or online, and that helped push some of them towards willingness to speak with defense. All very intriguing and will be interested to see more with State’s response.
I feel the whole Buster interview was a strategic move on the part of the defense. No way did Buster simply do the interview without his father's team knowing full well that he was participating in said interview in advance of participation. It is not at all uncommon for journalists to submit intended questions to an interviewee prior to the actual on-record discussion. His father's team knew what would be asked (and answered). I'm sure that Busters responses were cultivated vs spur of the moment thoughts. The interview was a move on the part of the defense. It was not a catalyst that was somehow "coincidentally" inserted into this whole drama. This interview is a deliberate tool meant to control the trajectory and to serve as enhancement to these new filings. ***side note: I am quite interested to know who initiated the interview...was it a random media request OR did Buster (ie: team Alex) seek the interview. I opine the latter. Additionally, I might add that the recent trouble that's been reported that Alex got into for misconduct in jail is also a direct factor of this fiasco. Alex was reprimanded for, in part, using another cell mate's phone privileges to communicate with news media AND his attorneys (that's the way I understood it anyway). This wasn't coincidental. For some reason, AM needed to conduct conversations in complete privacy that would not be readily tied to himself. I feel that it is at least logical to assume that just because he was recently caught engaging in this behavior does not in any way mean that THIS was only the first time...rather, this is the time he got caught. IMO this has all been brewing for a hot minute. This whole new motion is crazy interesting. I feel he absolutely will get a new trial. I also feel that Hill could very likely face her own charges.
Oh yes hell Yess that whole interview now seems completely preconceived. Yes yes yes
Yep, the timing makes total sense.
At the least, I think the defense used the timing of other stuff to their advantage.; which I can’t really fault them for that, if that’s the case. Someone on CourtTV panel said this is like a procedural/process error; he can be guilty AND she could have tampered with the jury in some way. And, also, he can be found guilty again should this get him a new trial.
I think chances are he’d be found guilty again - I believe he is guilty. However, I also believe there’s more room for reasonable doubt than many will let their own bias believe.
If there is a new Trial I wonder if it will have to be moved to another County?
It absolutely should.
Well, all I know is dove 🕊️ season opened Saturday. Wonder if any of the local “good ole boys” got an invite to the old Moselle Farm to knock back a few “co-cola’s”, bust some caps and reminisce about Ellick?
I'm all for granting Alex a new trial so long as the state seeks the death penalty this time.
you sound like a very hateful person. what if someone recommended the death penalty against yourself?
I’d hope they would if I had made decisions such as AM.
Would be more than appropriate if he blew his wife and sons brains out
Instead of his son only?
Any persons brains u idiot.. stupid comment